2011-06-15_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 15, 2011 Page 6 mail list serve for those signed up to receive such notices provided. Mr. Paschke advised 257 that there had been no other specific attempts on the part of staff to send out a copy of 258 the Map and Plan currently before the Commission to those 730 recipients of the original 259 letter; but that interested parties could find multiple ways to contact staff and request a 260 copy of the Plan and Map. 261 Public Comment 262 Mr. Paschke noted the receipt by hand delivery of written comments dated June 15, 2011 263 from Attorney Robert J. Hajek, with the firm of Hajek & Beauclaire, LLC, Attorney of 264 record for XTRA Lease, Inc., owner of the parcel located at 2700 Cleveland Avenue N 265 (PID #04-29-23-33-002) were received in opposition; and attached hereto and made a 266 part hereof. 267 Mr. Paschke the reference in Mr. Hajek’s letter (second paragraph) to “Lifestyle Center” 268 type zoning was not applicable, as the City was not creating design standards of zoning 269 designation for this type of use. However, Mr. Paschke wanted to get into t the official 270 record that they were in opposition to the proposed Regulating Map and Plan. 271 Member Wozniak asked Mr. Lamb to identify their parcel on the displayed map, located 272 on Twin Lakes Parkway between Cleveland Avenue and Mount Ridge Road. 273 Mr. Paschke clarified that the parcel was where the hotel proposed several years ago 274 had been planned. 275 Mr. Paschke advised that Mr. Lamb and City staff had met with some of the property 276 owners immediately prior to tonight’s meeting to provide them with proposed revisions to 277 the Plan and to receive their feedback on the more relaxed design standards since the 278 open house. Mr. Paschke advised that there remained some opposition even with 279 revisions; progress was being made in addressing those concerns. Mr. Paschke advised 280 that some additional things could be modified. However, in meeting with the 281 representative for the PIK property on Twin Lakes Parkway between Mount Ridge Road 282 up to County Road C (north to south), in the Greenway Frontage designated area (north 283 side), there remained very prescriptive building placement for those parcels, to which the 284 property owner objected based on limitations to what could actually be developed on that 285 site. While not opposed to all requirements, Mr. Paschke advised that the property owner 286 was opposed to what was proposed there and the required width of the greenway itself; 287 and has asked for further consideration. Mr. Paschke advised that staff would continue to 288 work with the property owner on a resolution. 289 Related to the build-to line on that parcel adjacent to Langton Lake Park, if there was 290 parking in current design standards as proposed for that area, Mr. Paschke noted there 291 would be some flexibility of the 5-25’; however, he noted that, at this time, the parking 292 would have to be screened with a wall up to the minimum of 36” with nothing behind it: no 293 trial or park or other uses. Mr. Paschke opined that it seemed to make some sense to 294 look at it somewhat differently, perhaps by requiring more landscaping, but no wall or 295 fence to screen from the woods as part of Langton Lake Park. While wanting to be 296 sensitive to the walkway, Mr. Paschke opined that current design standards as proposed 297 may be a higher standard that should be implemented realistically and in that particular 298 area. 299 Member Wozniak sought clarification on the location of the trail in the park at that point. 300 Mr. Paschke was unsure how the trail meandered through the park, thinking it was more 301 inward than exterior in that area, but if adjacent to the property line, offered for staff to 302 work with the developer to provide a greater screen from that, rather than requiring a wall 303 for the entire length that seemed to be overkill in this specific situation. 304 Mr. Paschke reviewed another item discussed, the public realm corridor off Iona, mostly 305 restrictive with little flexibility with building siting on those parcels and in those areas, with 306 it all considered an open parcel. Mr. Paschke advised that comments from property 307 owners were whether there was a way for more flexibility on where the pedestrian 308